nitrogen in passenger car tires?

good idea or waste of time?

what's the science behind it?


bob

In article >,
"bob" > wrote:

> good idea or waste of time?

Waste of time - you're already running something in the neighborhood of
a 75% nitrogen mix in your tires.

> what's the science behind it?

There is none - Unless the science of "separating suckers from their
money" counts.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Don Bruder wrote:
> In article >,
> "bob" > wrote:
>
>
>>good idea or waste of time?
>
>
> Waste of time - you're already running something in the neighborhood of
> a 75% nitrogen mix in your tires.

Closer to 80%, but who's counting?

>
>>what's the science behind it?
>
>
> There is none - Unless the science of "separating suckers from their
> money" counts.

There is a certain amount of science to it. Not so much
that nitrogen is so much better, but that the purified
nitrogen is generally free of moisture. Race tires often
use nitrogen or simply "dry air". They claim that pure
nitrogen is les permeable (leaks slower), but again
atmospheric air is 79% nitrogen. Personally I think it's
easier to just check the tires more often with an accurate
gauge. The other claim is that oxygen will eventually
oxidize th rubber. I think that's BS, since a tire has a
liner that shouldn't readily oxidize. Oxygen will
penetrate from the outside into the rubber anyways.

Most of the explanations I've heard seem more like
pseudo-science that sounds like it might be worth an
extra $40.

Most Costco locations now use nitrogen at no extra cost.
I brought a car in (not mine) and they made sure to deflate
the tires and fill with nitrogen after a free rotation. I
wouldn't pay for it though.

Don Bruder wrote:

> In article >,
> "bob" > wrote:
>
> > good idea or waste of time?
>
> Waste of time - you're already running something in the neighborhood
> of a 75% nitrogen mix in your tires.



78%, actually. And 21% oxygen, 1% other gases.



>
> > what's the science behind it?
>
> There is none - Unless the science of "separating suckers from their
> money" counts.



Apparently pure nitrogen is used by some truck fleets. The absence of
oxygen means absence of moisture, and better control of inflation
pressures over operating temperature ranges. Some race cars use pure
nitrogen as well, for the same reasons.

I do question the cost/benefit ratio of nitrogen in ordinary passenger
cars, though. Doesn't seem worth it to me when I can get regular air
for free with a bicycle pump. I just use an ordinary bicycle pump to
add a few pounds here and there as needed.

bob > wrote:
>good idea or waste of time?

Of course it's a good idea. I always fill my tires with a mixture of about
80% nitrogen.

>what's the science behind it?

It holds the tires and keeps them from getting flat, while costing much
less than argon or neon mixes, and being less explosive than butane or propane.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

bob wrote:
> good idea or waste of time?
>
> what's the science behind it?
>
>
> bob

What are the claimed benefits.

It won't improve milage, extend tire life or improve the ride, but it
will separate you from some $$.

Hugo Schmeisser > wrote:
>
>78%, actually. And 21% oxygen, 1% other gases.

I bet a nickel it's a good bit more than 1% in Los Angeles.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"John S." > wrote in message
> What are the claimed benefits.

Some have claimed that the oxygen and moisture in compressed air
lead to the decomposition of the elastomer used in the tire. I have
my doubts about it.. Have never seen definitive tests one way or the
other.

The ozone cracking, etc, is normally more noticeable on the outside
of the tire, isn't it?

It certainly doesn't hurt anything to use nitrogen, just like it doesn't
hurt to use deionized water in your coolant system.

wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message
> > What are the claimed benefits.
>
> Some have claimed that the oxygen and moisture in compressed air
> lead to the decomposition of the elastomer used in the tire. I have
> my doubts about it.. Have never seen definitive tests one way or the
> other.

Unless one was considering keeping the tire mounted for 30 years on the
same rim I don't think that is an issue.

>
> The ozone cracking, etc, is normally more noticeable on the outside
> of the tire, isn't it?

Yup, that's what I would think too.

>
> It certainly doesn't hurt anything to use nitrogen, just like it doesn't
> hurt to use deionized water in your coolant system.

It won't hurt, and as long as it is free and easy to use then sure, why
not use nitrogen.

I suspect that the only tire deterioration of any consequence is the
result of tread-to-road contact. The rest of this supposed problem is
the result of guys looking for some new automotive problem to worry
about and a few entrepreneurs who are willing to provide an imaginary
solution.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Hugo Schmeisser > wrote:
> >
> > 78%, actually. And 21% oxygen, 1% other gases.
>
> I bet a nickel it's a good bit more than 1% in Los Angeles.






Seriously, I was in Los Angeles this past summer. To the nose and eyes,
your air is cleaner than that of Toronto, a much smaller city, and one
that does not labour under a thermal inversion. I was impressed,
actually. Perhaps it's due to a lack of diesel-powered city buses.